Better reasons to quit Christianity

[Mister Agenda]

The concept seems to be taught by scripture, yes. Why do you ask?

Why do you have to ask why I ask? You just said suffering may be justified because it's temporary, if there's an eternal hell, there's eternal suffering. Which puts you back at square one regarding your justification.

Rather than saying a God who exists in a dimension outside space and time cannot change anything, I'd say it is possible such a God (if he exists) has already changed things. That is, he has if he has the power to reach into time at any point in time and make changes any time he wants. For him (as the Rush song puts it), "time stands still." He would have all the time he needed to enter any point in time any time he wanted and make any change he wanted and then see the result at the end of time. The timeline of time, we might imagine, is not a done deal, but a work in progress. You have to think outside the box of time and imagine what someone who existed in a time outside of time might be able to do.

If 'time stands still' he doesn't have any time at all. A shorter way of saying 'doesn't exist in space or time' is 'doesn't exist'. Nowhere, nowhen. Maybe you should consider thinking outside of the box of time: a God who exists in time and space but not our time and space would be more logically coherent, like a programmer who exists outside of an elaborate simulation; but can stop, rewind, alter, and erase at will.

True, your concept of omnipotence might have no referent in reality, but that does not mean that my concept (or the concept someone else has) of omnipotence does not have a referent in reality, I think. To say that your concept is unreal and so no concept is real is to create a straw man and knock it down, I think. Why not consider the concept of someone else before dismissing it as unreal as your own?

Because if 'omnipotent' means whatever you want it to mean, discussing it is pointless. You take it to mean something other than all-powerful so you can keep using the word and avoid the logical inconsistencies. Good for you. Why should I use your definition instead of this one?

om·nip·o·tent (m-np-tnt)
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

But you were a Penecostal. Weren't you taught the difference between physical death and spiritual death?

Sure. I was hoping that sharing the information that I'm a Pentecostal would move the conversation along as you wouldn't assume I was unaware of the usual arguments. I'm aware of it but find it very unconvincing in absence of a willingness to apply ad hoc reasoning to make it make sense.

Before rejecting the idea that the Bible gives different meanings to the word death depending on the context, you should first ask what I think the word die means in the context we are discussing, don't you think?

No, I don't think that. First, I have not rejected the idea that the Bible gives different meanings to the word death depending on context. I have accepted that the context in these cases is especially clear. Do you think Jacob died spiritually when he saw God face-to-face? Second, what you think the word 'die' means doesn't matter to this discussion. What matters is what was meant by the word 'die' in Genesis. I don't recognize you as having any particular qualification or authority as a Bible translator, so why would I consult you on such a thing? If you have substantial evidence that your interpretation is the correct one, present it.

The KJV also doesn't use the word Trinity, either, but I'm sure you were taught how the concept is clearly taught in scripture--unless, of course, you used to be a Oneness Penecostal. In that case, you were taught Modalism, which is a word that is also not in the Bible.

I used to be a 'Oneness Pentecostal'. Clearly, early Judaism was henotheistic as other gods were referred to. The NT refers to Jesus as the Son of God (and as the Word in John), refers to the Holy Ghost, and to the Father. Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is referred to; as is baptism in the name of Jesus, which Oneness Pentecostals resolve by inferring that Jesus is the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. That is, rather than a trinity, God created the universe and life (Father), incarnated as a human (Son) and otherwise interacted with humans as a spirit (Holy Ghost). I count at least four gods in mainstream Christianity: The Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, and the Devil (god of evil). In an admittedly polytheistic religion, angels would be counted as lesser gods and saints as demigods. They are actually considered loas in Voodoun and Santeria.

I propose we use the meaning of the word omnipotent that is not logically absurd.

I propose we reject words with logically absurd meanings as applying to anything real. How about 'ultrapotent' instead?

If we say, like some mistakenly believe, that omnipotence is the power to do anything at all, then that means it is the power to make a person 100% honest 100% of the time and (at the same time) 100% dishonest 100% of the time. If we say omnipotence is the power to do anything at all, then it would be the power to make a circle that is not only perfectly round, but also has four right angles at the same time. If we say omnipotence is the power to do anything at all, then it would be the power to make an object that is completely white and completely black at the same time. Such propositions are self-contradictory, illogical and absurd!

Yet rather than conclude the problem is in the concept of omnipotence, you will change the meaning to what you want it to be so you can keep saying it. I'll point out that changing the meaning to 'able to do anything that is logically possible' still has problems. It is logically possible to have free will and make the choices that get you into heaven (if you think anyone does this, you think it's possible), so it is logically possible for God to make such beings.

So I don't see anyway it is logically possible for omnipotence to be the power to do absolutely anything at all--no matter how utterly ridiculous it is.

It's just a word. It has the meaning given to it. Words can be absurd. If 'invisipink' means 'invisibly pink', we conclude that there's nothing that's invisipink, not that 'invisipink' must have its definition changed.

What I suggest is that omnipotence is instead the power to do anything that is not self-contradictory, is not illogical and is not absurd. Would you agree with this definition of the word? Or do you think it nonsensical for me to make such a suggestion?

It's not nonsensical, you represent a long tradition of efforts to try to define God's attributes in a way that retains traditional wording while making what they refer to more unfalsifiable. There are plenty of arguments about what words mean, and trying to agree on terms is a sound discussion practice. I both don't agree and don't think it's nonsensical.

Here's a suggestion: just use 'logical omnipotence' or 'coherent omnipotence' where you would normally use 'omnipotence' so we know what kind of omnipotence you mean. Like we will sometimes use 'agnostic atheism' when distinguishing it from 'gnostic atheism' is meaningful. You don't need to use it all the time, just enough to be clear that you're not talking about re-writing logic. Bear in mind, this form of omnipotence still has problems in relation to the other 'omnis', even though it has the virtue of not contradicting itself.

Interestingly, this leaves me in the position of being able to accomplish a feat that God can't: I can make something so heavy that I can't lift it.